327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can a person born in the Philippines to a Filipino mother
and an American father, who failed to elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of 21 under the 1935 Constitution, still be considered a
natural-born Filipino citizen eligible to reacquire Philippine citizenship?
Facts of the Case:
Walter Manuel F. Prescott was born in the Philippines on
April 10, 1950, to a Filipino mother and an American father. He lived his
entire life in the Philippines until 1982, when he left for the United States,
where he eventually became a naturalized American citizen in 2006. He later
applied for reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No.
9225 in 2008, which was granted.
In 2012, his wife, Maria Lourdes Dingcong, filed a complaint
against him, alleging that Prescott had illegally reacquired Philippine
citizenship. The Bureau of Immigration (BI) investigated and concluded that
Prescott, having been born under the 1935 Constitution to an American father,
did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching 21 years old and was thus
not qualified to reacquire Philippine citizenship. Consequently, the BI
canceled his certificate of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and ordered
his deportation.
Prescott was arrested in 2016 pursuant to a deportation
order. Despite filing motions for reconsideration and a petition for
declaratory relief and habeas corpus, the lower courts sustained the
deportation order. Prescott appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the
revocation of his citizenship was a collateral attack and that he was a
natural-born Filipino by virtue of his Filipino mother.
Primary Issue:
Can Walter Manuel F. Prescott be considered a natural-born
Filipino citizen despite failing to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
21 years old, thus allowing him to reacquire Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225?
Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prescott, declaring that
the revocation of his Philippine citizenship and the deportation order were
void. The Court held that although Prescott did not formally elect Philippine
citizenship as required under the 1935 Constitution, his positive acts
throughout his life demonstrated his election of Philippine citizenship. These
acts included living most of his life in the Philippines, identifying as
Filipino in official documents, and reacquiring Philippine citizenship in 2008
through the proper channels.
Moreover, the Court found that the Bureau of Immigration and
Department of Justice violated Prescott’s right to due process by proceeding
with the revocation of his citizenship without proper notice and hearing. The
Court emphasized that citizenship cannot be revoked without due process, and
the collateral attack on his citizenship was improper.
Dispositive Portion:
“ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
June 25, 2021, and Resolution dated August 15, 2022, of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 161957 are REVERSED. The Deportation Order issued against
petitioner Walter Manuel F. Prescott under Bureau of Immigration Resolution
dated March 29, 2016, in D.C. No. SBM/LD-15-08/07-659 is declared VOID. The
Petition for Habeas Corpus of petitioner Walter Manuel F. Prescott is GRANTED,
and the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Justice and their agents,
representatives, or persons acting in their place or stead are ORDERED to
RELEASE petitioner Walter Manuel F. Prescott immediately. They are required to
submit their compliance within five days from notice hereof.”
Should a person’s citizenship be determined by
technicalities such as filing formal documents, or should their lifelong
actions and affiliations weigh more in determining their nationality?
Important Doctrines:
- Due
Process in Citizenship Revocation: The right to due process must be
observed in administrative proceedings involving the revocation of
citizenship. A person cannot be deprived of citizenship without proper
notice and the opportunity to be heard.
- Election
of Philippine Citizenship: Under the 1935 Constitution, a child born
to a Filipino mother and a foreign father must elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However, the Court
recognizes informal election through consistent acts manifesting
allegiance to the Philippines.
- Citizenship
by Positive Acts: Consistent acts demonstrating allegiance to the
Philippines, such as living in the country and identifying as Filipino in
official documents, can be considered an election of Philippine
citizenship, even without formal compliance with procedural requirements.
- Immutability
of Final Judgments: Once a judgment or resolution has attained
finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable, except in cases where due
process has been violated, rendering the judgment void.
Classification: Civil Law (Citizenship,
Administrative Due Process).
From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66f016b9-e8cc-800a-a6d0-6b9884ea1ba6>
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)
Read the full text here
📚 This content
discusses the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Walter Manuel F. Prescott
vs. Bureau of Immigration & DOJ, G.R. No. 262938, promulgated on December
5, 2023. It focuses on crucial citizenship doctrines, especially
relevant to law students, bar examinees (baristas), and legal
practitioners reviewing for Remedial and Civil Law exams.
This case involved a shocking legal dilemma: Can a man
who lived his entire life as a Filipino still be deported for failing to elect
Philippine citizenship at 21?
The Supreme Court reversed the deportation order and
held that Prescott is a natural-born Filipino, having validly reacquired
his citizenship. The Court emphasized due process and substantive
compliance over rigid formalities in election of citizenship.
👉Should procedural
technicalities override decades of proven allegiance to the Philippines?
📌 NATURE OF THE CASE:
Civil and Remedial Law – Citizenship, Due Process, Habeas
Corpus
📌 TITLE:
Walter Manuel F. Prescott vs. Bureau of Immigration and
Department of Justice
📌 DATE OF PROMULGATION:
December 5, 2023
📌 CASE SUMMARY:
Prescott, born in the Philippines to a Filipino mother and
American father under the 1935 Constitution, failed to formally elect
Philippine citizenship. After reacquiring it under R.A. 9225, it was revoked
without notice, leading to his arrest and deportation. The SC ruled in his
favor, declaring him a natural-born Filipino and voiding the deportation
order for lack of due process.
🎓 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES
- Due
Process in Citizenship Revocation
Citizenship cannot be revoked without proper notice and hearing. A decision issued without affording opportunity to be heard is void ab initio.
(Ref: Prescott Decision, pp. 88–90) - Direct
vs. Collateral Attack on Citizenship
Only a direct attack on citizenship is allowed. A complaint explicitly seeking revocation is a valid direct attack.
(Ref: p. 54) - Natural-Born
Citizenship by Positive Acts
Failure to formally elect does not defeat citizenship if one's life shows deliberate allegiance to the Philippines.
(Ref: pp. 112–117) - Oath
of Allegiance as Substantial Compliance
An oath under R.A. 9225, though done decades later, may substitute for the formal election under the 1935 Constitution.
(Ref: p. 115) - Void
Proceedings Render Deportation Illegal
If the citizenship revocation proceeding is void, any resulting deportation order is likewise void and unenforceable.
(Ref: pp. 90–93) - Citizenship
Cannot Be Revoked Collaterally
Administrative revocation of reacquisition is valid only if based on fraud, misrepresentation, and with due hearing.
(Ref: pp. 50–54) - Habeas
Corpus as Remedy for Void Detention
Where detention is based on a void deportation order, habeas corpus is proper to secure release.
(Ref: p. 138) - Application
of International Law on Statelessness
Under the 1961 Convention on Reduction of Statelessness, the Philippines is obligated to grant nationality to persons who would otherwise be stateless.
(Ref: p. 119) - Doctrine
of Informal Election of Citizenship
Repeated acts of identifying as Filipino—e.g., using PH passport, living here—may show informal election.
(Ref: pp. 113–115) - Immutability
of Final Judgment Not Absolute
A void judgment, such as one rendered without due process, can be set aside anytime regardless of its finality.
(Ref: p. 90)
❓ FIVE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(FAQs):
- Can
you be deported if you were born in the Philippines to a Filipino parent?
Yes, if you failed to elect citizenship under the 1935 Constitution—but the SC now recognizes informal election through lifelong positive acts. - Does
reacquisition under R.A. 9225 guarantee permanent citizenship?
Only if obtained in good faith and not through fraud. It can be revoked—but only after due hearing. - Is
formal election still necessary today?
Not under the 1987 Constitution, but for those born under the 1935 Constitution to Filipino mothers, formal or informal election remains relevant. - What
is the importance of due process in citizenship cases?
Vital. Citizenship cannot be revoked without notice and hearing. Otherwise, proceedings are void ab initio. - Can
habeas corpus override a deportation order?
Yes, if the deportation is based on a void proceeding or if the detainee is actually a citizen.
🔔 Subscribe now to
stay updated on bar-relevant rulings and doctrinal cases!
💬 Comment your
thoughts: Should allegiance outweigh technicality in citizenship?
📌 Save this post and share
it with your fellow baristas and law students.
📚 Case Title: Walter
Manuel F. Prescott vs. Bureau of Immigration and Department of Justice,
G.R. No. 262938, December 5, 2023
📢 Disclaimer: This
content is for educational purposes only and does not claim infallibility. Made
using premium AI.
From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66f016b9-e8cc-800a-a6d0-6b9884ea1ba6>
Walter Manuel F. Prescott vs. Bureau of Immigration and
Department of Justice,
G.R. No. 262938, promulgated on December 5, 2023.
Nature of the Case:
This is a Civil and Remedial Law case with strong
implications on citizenship, deportation, and administrative
due process.
Brief Case Summary:
Walter Prescott, born in the Philippines to a Filipino
mother and an American father, failed to elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority under the 1935 Constitution. He later reacquired
it under a citizenship law. Years after, his citizenship was revoked by the
DOJ, and a deportation order was issued against him. The Supreme Court
ultimately ruled in his favor, declaring him a natural-born Filipino citizen,
voiding the deportation, and ordering his immediate release via habeas
corpus, citing serious due process violations.
📌 At the end of this
video, the Answer Key will be provided to check your answers. Good luck!
🔥 10 EASY DIFFICULTY HOTS
(Higher-Order Thinking Skills) MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following best describes the main
legal issue in the Prescott case?
A. Whether a foreigner can vote in Philippine elections
B. Whether a person can be deported despite identifying as
Filipino
C. Whether dual citizens are required to pay taxes abroad
D. Whether a passport application can be denied based on
marital issues
2. Why was Prescott’s reacquired citizenship revoked
by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ?
A. He applied for asylum in another country
B. He failed to pay immigration fees
C. He allegedly misrepresented facts in his application
D. He applied for reacquisition after retirement
3. What was the Supreme Court’s finding about the
deportation order issued against Prescott?
A. Valid but delayed
B. Null and void due to lack of due process
C. Suspended due to his age
D. Upheld with modifications
4. According to the Supreme Court, what constituted
substantial compliance with citizenship election requirements?
A. Serving in public office
B. Filing tax returns in the Philippines
C. Taking an oath of allegiance under a citizenship law
D. Presenting a voter’s ID
5. Which legal remedy was used to challenge the
legality of Prescott’s detention?
A. Petition for Certiorari
B. Petition for Mandamus
C. Petition for Annulment
D. Petition for Habeas Corpus
6. What is the significance of informal acts, such as
continuously identifying as Filipino, in this case?
A. They are considered evidence of fraud
B. They substitute for formal citizenship election
C. They void citizenship applications
D. They require approval from Congress
7. What role did the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO)
play in the case?
A. Acted as private prosecutors
B. Issued the deportation order
C. Took temporary custody of Prescott
D. Filed the complaint against him
8. Which constitutional right was emphasized as
violated during the administrative proceedings?
A. Right against self-incrimination
B. Right to free speech
C. Right to due process
D. Right to privacy
9. How did the Court treat the argument that the DOJ
resolution was already final and immutable?
A. It upheld finality as absolute
B. It ruled that finality does not apply to void judgments
C. It emphasized administrative efficiency
D. It rejected all challenges due to delay
10. Which international principle did the Court
invoke regarding individuals at risk of being stateless?
A. Principle of non-refoulement
B. Convention on Consular Relations
C. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
D. International Humanitarian Law
No comments:
Post a Comment